Redistricting Fights Move From Capitol to Courthouse
In a sort of legislative miracle, Texas lawmakers actually finished their redistricting work this year, drawing new political maps for Congress, the Texas House and Senate, and for the State Board of Education. But the fight is just starting, and could last beyond next year’s elections.
Nobody, including a fair number of lawmakers, thought the legislative part would be that easy. It helped to have a Republican supermajority. Still, the five-member state board that draws maps when lawmakers fail — the lieutenant governor, the speaker, the attorney general, the comptroller and the land commissioner — was all ready to go. But ...
Comments (11)
Jon Roland
It would be helpful if this report were to specify the styles and numbers of the cases, as some may want to file interventions, as I have done. We need a better way to draw maps, one that is done by computers with little or no human participation. Humans can discriminate, but computer programs that take into account only population distribution and not voting history, ethnicity, or incumbency, do not, especially when they are open source and can be examined by anyone to prevent undue tampering. See http://constitution.org/reform/us/tx/redistrict/cnpr.htm
Tom Gibson
The myth of mid-decade redistricting is once again being perpetuated. The practice DID NOT begin with the Republicans in 2003.
The Democrats, as recently as 1997 (and as late in the decade as 1997) had fiddled with the lines of the State House. In 1995 the legislature was in session when the courts had struck down portions of the State House map. The legislature decided to submit a new map to the court to address the legal issues, but, seeing an opportunity, also threw in a number of pet changes to accommodate the whims of some of the Democratic House members. The court basically accepted the legislative map where it addressed the legal issues, but the court specifically removed the extraneous pet changes. Not to be deterred, however, when the legislature reconvened in 1997, they decided just to pass a new redistricting bill that incorporated the pet changes into the House map.
And don’t forget, way back in 1983 the Democrats had also made gratuitous changes (not court mandated) to the existing Congressional map in order to beef up the Dem’s strength in district 23, swapping areas of northern San Antonio with Val Verde county. It seems that northern San Antonio was becoming a little too heavily Republican, and the Republican challenger in 1982 for the district 23 Congressional seat had his political base in that area, a guy by the name of Jeff Wentworth.
jimrtex
The legislative redistricting done by the LRB in 2001 was the first redistricting that has lasted the entire decade since the 1950s. It would actually be better to give them original authority to draw the legislative districts. The legislators have too much conflict of interest when drawing their own districts. This can be seen in the senate map where the west Texas districts are underpopulated.
For the senate, there should be standards written into the constitution: (1) No population deviation greater than 1% from the ideal, and standard deviation less than 1/2 of 1% (2) No counties split into more districts than the ideal number of districts for the county rounded to the nearest integer and one added. (3) No multiple spanning of counties, where more than one district is shared between counties (eg only one district could cross the Tarrant-Dallas county line). This would also apply to non-adjacent counties, so that only one district might include parts of both Travis and Bexar counties, even if one connected through Comal and Hays, and the other connected through Guadalupe, and Caldwell, and; or Kendall and Blanco.
For 2010, this would limit Harris County to 6 districts (or parts of districts), Dallas (4), Tarrant (3), Bexar (3), and Travis, El Paso, Collin, Hidalgo, Denton, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Williamson, and Cameron to (2). Smaller counties could not be split. It would be impossible to split El Paso county and not violate the multi-spanning rule.
The plan passed by the legislature violated these standards in the following ways.
18 districts too large of deviation from ideal size.
Excessive splitting of Harris (8 > 6), Dallas (5 > 4), Tarrant (4 > 3), Bexar (4 > 3), Travis (4 > 2), Fort Bend (3 > 2), and Nueces, Brazoria, Hays, Guadalupe, Taylor, and Atascosa (2 > 1).
Multispanning by districts 21 and 25 of Travis, Hays, Guadalupe, and Bexar counties; 11 and 17 of Harris and Brazoria; 13 and 17 of Fort Bend and Harris; and 19 and 21 of Bexar and Atascosa counties.
Glen Hill
I doubt everyone is ever going to be happy. If the difficulties are not political then they are racist. Democrats are afraid they may lose a slot as are republicans. Hispanics seem to believe only Hispanics can adequately represent Hispanics and this seems to apply to American Black citizens as well. The white Americans seem to roll with the flow and support the system. Shame we can't do anything civilally any more. I do not believe in hyphenated Americans. We are either 100% American or we are not American at all.
Rudyg43
The state of Texas will have redistricting in the federal courts because the Texas legislature will not comply with the mandate to redistrict according to the census numbers and proportion the four new district to include Hispanic/Latino population and black districts. It may take a while to get done, but it will get done!
Marcus mdc
@Glen: why wouldn't I want someone who's from my neighborhood to represent me instead of someone 10 miles away. That's what's happening in some of these districts: inner city residents being represented by a rural neighbor. It's not about preferring someone Black or Hispanic; it's about having someone represent you who has shared experiences.
Jon Roland
@ Marcus mdc
There is no relation between geographic proximity to constituents and either knowing their needs or representing their preferences. One of the most foolish things voters too often seek is "someone like me". But are you qualified to serve in Congress? Is anyone?
No, what you ideally want is someone who knows the problems of this country and how to solve them, and who is not swayed by pressures from constituents or donors to do anything but what is best for the country. As I said during my run for Congress in 1974:
"Political corruption begins with every voter who votes his pocketbook instead of for what is good for the country. There is little difference between an official who sells his vote, and a voter who sells his vote, for some promised benefit."
steve Bickerstaff
The Tribune is an excellent source of information, but this story has a few inaccuracies:
First, it is not the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia that has the authority to preclear an election change under the Voting Rights Act. Instead, it is a special district court created for each case. This court consists of two DC district judges and one judge from the DC Court of Appeals. It is configured just like the three-judge court in the Western District of Texas (e.g. San Antonio) you described for some of the redistricting lawsuits filed in Texas. Any challenge to a statewide apportionment requires such a court. Also, such a three-judge court is required for any action to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Second, this story creates a false impression that the district lines will remain unsettled by the time of the primaries. Probably not. If the redistricting plans fail to win preclearance under the Voting Rights Act by late 2011 or early 2012, a court (probably federal) will draw a plan to be used for the primaries (and probably the general election in 2012 because a court is reluctant to change the lines between a primary and general election since that will require finding a means of reopening filing and deciding on candidates based on the new boundaries). Any action before a special three judge court (in DC or Texas) is appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, so the cases will probably reach the Supreme Court for an initial ruling based on summary affirmance or stay before the 2012 Primary. A special court's plans are styled as "temporary," but, in most cases, the Texas Legislature has left these plans in effect (once they are used for an election and the members of the legislature or Congress are elected from the court drawn districts). Changes are usually minimal. The obvious exception was the congressional redistricting in 2003 when Congressman DeLay led an effort to redraw the court drawn congressional districts to defeat as many as ten incumbent Democratic Congressmen. I do not see such a wholesale "mid-decade" redistricting occurring again in this decade.
Third, the "legislative miracle" of the legislature actually passing legislation redrawing congressional, state legislative and state board of education districts is not unprecedented. In 1991, the Democratically controlled legislature passed all of the requisite plans, but the state legislative districts failed to win preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. A federal court drew boundaries for the 1992 election. The congressional districts won preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and survived an initial challenge in federal court., but some of the districts were later successfully challenged in a separate lawsuit as racial gerrymanders (1996).
Fourth, Mr. Gibson is correct that the Texas Legislature has redrawn district boundaries during a decade prior to 2003. The differences in 2003 were in the degree and purpose of the statewide redistricting of congressional district lines. It would be correct to say that the events of 2003 were unprecedented, but not wholly novel.
Fifth, are you sure about the obligation of candidates to file by December? I have not rechecked the law, but in the past the filing has begun in December, but closed in early January. The courts have often extended or even reopened filing when necessary to assure that primaries are carried out on the basis on what the court sees as legal lines.
Thanks.
Steve Bickerstaff
jimrtex
The legislature passed a redistricting plan in 1991, which was thrown out by a cherry-picked state court, and overturned by a federal court. Governor Richards called a special session for redistricting in 1992, at which time she likened redistricting to butchering hogs and suggested that some federal judges were more suited for a high chair than a high court.
The lines drawn by the legislature were not pre-cleared until midway through 1992. Initially, SOS John Hannah said that the candidates nominated in the primary in District X could run in the general election in District X or withdraw and let the party decide on a new candidate. But eventually, the 1992 senate election was run using the federal court boundaries.
The map drawn in 1992 by the legislature was used in 1994 for the legislature. This meant that all senate seats were contested. These districts were overturned by a federal court at about the time of Bush v Vera overturned the congressional districts.
The Senate "agreed" to modifying the senate districts, but without formally doing so. This was because then-AG Dan Morales ruled that if the senate did not actually "change" the districts, but merely actively acquiesced in their imposition by the court, that all seats did not have to be contested. So the senators who had been elected in 1994 and drawn an initial 4-year term did not have to run in 1996. It also meant that some citizens had a senator who they had not voted for (and could not have voted for), while others had voted for two senators.
So the 1996 elections were run on new boundaries in half the districts. And the 1998 elections were run on different boundaries than were putatively in effect in 1996.
The 2000 elections did use the 1996 boundaries, which was the only election during the decade where the same boundaries were used for two consecutive elections.
jimrtex
The filing deadline for the primary (and accidentally for independent candidates) was moved to December (see SB 100). This was done so that military and overseas ballots can be mailed out 45 days before the election - to comply with federal law (MOVE act). With an early March primary, this means ballots have to be finalized and prepared by mid-January. To allow for possible candidate challenges, ballot preparation, and county election officials wanting time off during the holidays, the filing deadline was moved to early December.
This causes a problem with a constitutional provision (Article XVI, Section 65) that requires county officials to resign if they file for another office with more than one year remaining on their term. The reason that the old filing deadline was barely into January was so that county officials could file for a new position slightly less than 365 days before their term ends. There will be a referendum on this November's ballot that will amend Article XVI, Section 65.
It is possible that even if this amendment is rejected, the existing version could be challenged. It was previously narrowly upheld by the US Supreme Court (Clements v Fashing) when it only stopped candidates midway through a 4-year term from running for another office. With a December filing deadline, it would block a county commissioner who wanted to run for county judge, for a term beginning at the end of his current term, without resigning his commissioner's position.
This of course assumes both SB 100 and the constitutional amendment are precleared. Arguably, early primaries discriminate against voters who are just 18, newly naturalized citizens, re-enfranchised felons, and persons moving into a district, by preventing them from effectively voting in the election of their representatives. These groups tend to be more non-Anglo than the electorate as a whole.
Terry v Adams has an interesting dialogue about the use of a May election to keep voters from having an effective vote in a July primary.
A candidate who wants to run in the primary, and gather signatures rather than paying a filing fee, must do so before the filing deadline. State law sets no starting date for the collection of such signatures, but since roughly 3 months are allowed for independent candidates to gather the same number of signatures, equal protection considerations would argue for a beginning date for collection of signatures around Labor Day. Since petition signers must live in the district, this means that the redistricting maps must be finally approved by about September 1.
jimrtex
The federal district court in 2001 told Morris Overstreet that if he wanted a 2nd Black congressional district in Houston he should go to the legislature, that no matter how sympathetic they were to his cause, that it was beyond the capacity of a federal court to impose their ideology or political beliefs on Texas. All they could do was patch up the misbegotten map from the 1990s since that was expression of legislative intent.